United States District Court, E.D. Oklahoma
OPINION AND ORDER
KIMBERLY E. WEST UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
Plaintiff
Teresa Murray (the “Claimant”) requests judicial
review of the decision of the Commissioner of the Social
Security Administration (the “Commissioner”)
denying Claimant’s application for disability benefits
under the Social Security Act. Claimant appeals the decision
of the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) and
asserts that the Commissioner erred because the ALJ
incorrectly determined that Claimant was not disabled. For
the reasons discussed below, it is the finding of this Court
that the Commissioner's decision should be and is
REVERSED and the case is REMANDED for further proceedings.
Social
Security Law and Standard of Review
Disability under the Social Security Act is defined as the
“inability to engage in any substantial gainful
activity by reason of any medically determinable physical or
mental impairment. . .” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(1)(A).
A claimant is disabled under the Social Security Act
“only if his physical or mental impairment or
impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable
to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age,
education, and work experience, engage in any other kind of
substantial gainful work which exists in the national
economy. . .” 42 U.S.C. §423(d)(2)(A). Social
Security regulations implement a five-step sequential process
to evaluate a disability claim. See, 20 C.F.R.
§§ 404.1520, 416.920.[1]
Judicial
review of the Commissioner’s determination is limited
in scope by 42 U.S.C. § 405(g). This Court’s
review is limited to two inquiries: first, whether the
decision was supported by substantial evidence; and, second,
whether the correct legal standards were applied. Hawkins
v. Chater, 113 F.3d 1162, 1164 (10th Cir. 1997)(citation
omitted). The term “substantial evidence” has
been interpreted by the United States Supreme Court to
require “more than a mere scintilla. It means such
relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as
adequate to support a conclusion.” Richardson v.
Perales, 402 U.S. 389, 401 (1971) (quoting
Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229
(1938)). The court may not re-weigh the evidence nor
substitute its discretion for that of the agency. Casias
v. Secretary of Health & Human Servs., 933 F.2d 799,
800 (10th Cir. 1991). Nevertheless, the court must review the
record as a whole, and the “substantiality of the
evidence must take into account whatever in the record fairly
detracts from its weight.” Universal Camera Corp.
v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951); see also,
Casias, 933 F.2d at 800-01.
Claimant’s
Background
Claimant
was 50 years old at the time of the ALJ’s decision.
Claimant completed her high school education and attended two
semesters of college. Claimant completed a vocational course
and earned certification as a habilitation training
specialist. Claimant has worked in the past as a residential
care aide, an employment training specialist, a door-to-door
sales representative, a receptionist, and an administrative
clerk. Claimant alleges an inability to work beginning
November 20, 2015 due to limitations resulting from pain in
her back, neck, and knees.
Procedural
History
On
November 20, 2015, Claimant protectively filed for disability
insurance benefits under Title II (42 U.S.C. § 401,
et seq.) of the Social Security Act.
Claimant’s application was denied initially and upon
reconsideration. On August 28, 2017, Administrative Law Judge
(“ALJ”) Michael Mannes conducted an
administrative hearing by video with Claimant appearing in
Muskogee, Oklahoma and the ALJ presiding from McAlester
Oklahoma. On October 23, 2017, the ALJ issued an unfavorable
decision. On June 21, 2018, the Appeals Council denied
review. As a result, the decision of the ALJ represents the
Commissioner’s final decision for purposes of further
appeal. 20 C.F.R. §§ 404.981, 416.1481.
Decision
of the Administrative Law Judge
The ALJ
made his decision at step five of the sequential evaluation.
He determined that while Claimant suffered from severe
impairments, she retained the residual functional capacity
(“RFC”) to perform sedentary work.
Error
Alleged for Review
Claimant
asserts the ALJ committed error in finding that Claimant had
transferable skills at step five.
Step
...